Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 1588
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harjit Singh Bedi, A.S. Garg, JJ.
Dharam Pal – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Crl. Misc. No. 21778 of 1999 in Crl. Appeal No. 428-DB of 1996
Decided On : 08-09-1999
For the Appellant :Mr. R.S. Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. R.S. Tacoria, Addl. A.G. Haryana
The grant of bail should be liberalized at the pre-conviction stage and in any eventuality, the grant of bail should be seriously considered in the case of a delayed trial.
Headnote:
BAIL - CRIMINAL APPEALS - DELAY IN DISPOSAL - GUIDELINES FOR GRANT OF BAIL - CATEGORIZATION OF CRIMES - PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT - FEMALES/MINORS - CASES WHERE BAIL IS FORBIDDEN BY LAW - PRIORITY IN HEARING OF APPEALS WHERE BAIL IS DENIED - CONSTITUTION OF DIVISION BENCH FOR HEARING CRIMINAL APPEALS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a 24-year-old student, was arrested on a charge of murder in 1993. He was convicted of the charge by the Sessions Judge, Ambala, in 1996 and filed an appeal in the High Court. The appeal was admitted, but bail was denied. The appellant filed two more bail applications, which were also dismissed. The appellant argued that he should be released on bail as he had already been in custody for more than six years and the appeal was unlikely to be heard expeditiously.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that the delay in the disposal of criminal appeals was a matter of serious concern and that the plight of prisoners who were forced to wait for years for their appeals to be heard was deplorable. The court noted that the Supreme Court had held that the grant of bail should be liberalized at the pre-conviction stage and that in any eventuality, the grant of bail should be seriously considered in the case of a delayed trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant should be released on bail considering the delay in the disposal of his appeal. 2. Whether guidelines should be framed for the grant of bail to prisoners whose appeals are unlikely to be heard expeditiously.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant should be released on bail as he had already been in custody for more than six years and the appeal was unlikely to be heard expeditiously. The court also framed guidelines for the grant of bail to prisoners whose appeals are unlikely to be heard expeditiously. The guidelines were based on the categorization of crimes given in a circular issued by the Punjab Government. The court directed that life convicts, who have undergone at least five years of imprisonment, of which at least three years should be after conviction, should be released on bail pending the hearing of their appeals. The court also directed that the period of five years would be reduced to four for females and minors, with at least 2 years imprisonment after conviction.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appellant's bail application and directed that he be released on bail. The court also directed that copies of the judgment be supplied free of cost to the Inspector General of Prisons for the States of Punjab and Haryana as also of the Union Territory of Chandigarh for onward transmission to the jail/sub-jails under their control, for further information to all prisoners.
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.
Vide order dated September 8, 1999, we had granted bail to the accused-appellant. We now give detailed reasons for doing so and also make an attempt to frame certain guide-lines for the grant of bail where appeals against conviction filed in the High Court by those who stand convicted for life, and which cannot be heard with reasonable expedition should be dealt with. While issuing notice on the bail application, we had invited all counsel, who wished to assist us, to address us on the question posed.
2. Mr. R.S. Ghai, Sr. Advocate, the appellant's counsel in this case, Mr. P.S. Mann, Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocates and Mr. R.T.P.S. Tulsi, Advocate, had appeared before us to project the point of view of the prisoners whereas Mr. Ram Avtar and Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana and Deputy Advocate General Punjab respectively, had put in appearance on behalf of their respective States.
3. The delay in disposal of criminal appeals pending in the High Courts is a matter of serious concern to all those involved in the administration of criminal justice but whereas the Administrators have an undoubted (albeit an impersonal concern) the persons widely affected by the delay are the prisoners themselves despairing of the fact that their appeals are not being heard within a reasonable time. The plight of such persons can well be imagined. The appellant in the present case, a young student 24 years of age 6 years ago, was arrested on a charge of murder on 29.7.1993. The allegation against him was that he has caused one injury with a knife on the person of the deceased, which proved to be fatal. He was convicted of the charge by the Sessions judge, Ambala on 12.4.1996. He filed an appeal in this Court on 31.5.1996 alongwith an application for bail and though the appeal was admitted, bail was declined on 3.12.1996. A second bail application was also dismissed on 7.2.1997. The present application is the third one. This application has been allowed for the reasons that follow and in the background of what has been stated above, after he has been in custody for more than six years.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has often been seized of the problem in the disposal of criminal trials of which an appeal is but a continuation. In all these judgments, an attempt has been made to balance the conflict of interest that arises with the State trying to ensure that a prisoner must be retained in custody till the completion of the trial or his period of sentence, as the case may be, and the effort of the prisoner, on the other hand, to seek a speedy trial or an expeditious hearing of the appeal, failing which, staking his claim to the grant of bail. In Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1360, it was observed that it was appropriate that the grant of bail should be liberalised at the pre-conviction stage but in any eventuality, the grant of bail should be seriously considered in the case of a delayed trial. We reproduce here paragraph 5 of the report :-
"5. There is also one other infirmity of the legal and judicial system which is responsible for this gross denial of justice to the under-trial prisoners and that is the notorious delay in disposal of cases. It is a sad reflection on the legal and judicial system that the trial of an accused should not even commence for a long number of years. Even a delay of one year in commencement of the trial is bad enough; how much worse could it be when the delay is as long as 3 or 5 or 7 or even 10 years. Speedy trial is of the essence of criminal justice and there can be no doubt that delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of justice. It is interesting to note that in the United States, speedy trial is one of the constitutionally guaranteed rights. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides that :
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial."
So also Article
